>Susan:
>>so is the Pope about to become an atheist? Why is it that Jesuits have been
>>teaching evolution in Catholic high schools since the sixties? because they
>>had become atheists? I kinda doubt it. The link between evolution and
>>relgion is and has always been spurious. Dawkins is an idiot. I know I've
>>said that before, but I think it can't be repeated enough. He may be a fine
>>zoologist, but philosophically he's an idiot. I find it hard to believe
>>Richard fell for his silliness.
>
>Bertvan . Hi Susan,
>While disagreeing with both the Pope and Dawkins, I do not regard either as
>idiots.
I"ll have to double-check my post. I don't recall saying or implying that
the Pope was an idiot. I don't see it in the quoted paragraph above.
Anyway, Dawkins is an idiot because he tries to make a scientific theory do
something it can't do, which is verify a personal belief that can't be
verified. He should be embarrassed at the breakdown of logic.
>If "silliness" were all they had to offer they wouldn't have so many
>people in agreement with them.
If *that* were true Pat Robertson would be a lonely man!!!
>I remind you again, Susan, most IDs do not
>disagree with some form of "evolution", it is the specific mechanism of
>Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection as an explanation of
>nature's complexity) that is being questioned by most.
that's not ID proponents, that's *you*. They aren't fussy about the
details, they can't handle what they view as contratiction and want
evolution to go away or be religionized (*their* religion, of course). And
they much prefer the former.
>Susan:
>>it is impossible to coerce belief. Copernicus believed the earth revolved
>>around the sun. He was coerced into keeping his findings secret until after
>>his death (in order to avoid hastening that death), but coercion could not
>>change his belief.
>
>Bertvan:
>I agree, Susan, no one is going to coerce the beliefs of you, me nor
>Copernicus. However, I fear many people say, "I don't understand it, and it
>doesn't sound reasonable, but if the experts say so it must be true."
>The present debate tells people not all the "experts" are in agreement. I
>know you often want to argue, but I never participate in these debates to
>change someone's beliefs. The present discussion of ID, and other
>alternatives, offers the undecided more choices. I will be content with
>whatever diversity of opinion emerges from open debate.
unless it falls your way, I sincerely doubt it. In any case, science isn't
conducted by popular vote--but by observations and the preponderence of
evidence, neither of which you care for or find "compelling."
>Passing laws to
>limit how much of the debate school children are allowed to hear would not be
>my choice, but I suspect such efforts will prove to be self defeating.
the courts do not keep "debate" out of schools, they keep *religion* out of
schools. If kids want to debate, there's always debate classes. In science
class they need to learn facts, evidence and information. Without that,
there's nothing to debate anyway.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 17:26:13 EDT